Apple has reportedly offered settlements to Motorola and Samsung in patent infringement suits against its rivals, and has asked for between $5 and $15 per handset.

Apple's apparent willingness to cut deals with its competitors was revealed on Tuesday by Dow Jones Newswires, which cited anonymous sources who indicated Apple has put forth proposals to both Motorola Mobility and Samsung Electronics.

The settlements offered by Apple allegedly seek royalty payments and other terms from both companies. It was said that Apple has asked for between $5 and $15 per handset for some of the patents in one negotiation, which would amount to between 1 percent and 2.5 percent of sales per device.

If true, the number is similar to what Motorola has sought in its own proposed settlement with Apple. Motorola revealed in court filings in February that it has asked for 2.25 percent of Apple's sales of wireless devices in exchange for a patent license covering its standard-essential intellectual property.

According to Dow Jones, Apple already had negotiations with companies, including Samsung, before it decided to turn to litigation. The iPhone maker first sued Samsung last April, accusing the company of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad.

It's unknown whether settlement negotiations between Apple and its rivals are currently taking place, the report said. People familiar with the issue portrayed it as part of an "ongoing process."

Patent infringement suits have become commonplace in the wireless industry, as many companies that design and sell smartphones are involved in litigation with one another in complaints lodged around the world.

Apple's disputes with Motorola and Samsung are of particular interest for their own reasons. Motorola is a newly acquired subsidiary of Google, the maker of Android, while Samsung, in addition to competing with Apple, is one of the company's chief suppliers of components like displays, flash memory and chips.

What Motorola has sought in its proposed settlement is nothing like what Apple wants. Apple is in no way obligated to license it's patents whereas Motorola's patents are on FRAND terms and has no choice but to license them.

Simply on principle, Apple should be demanding at least $100/per handset. Hell, $200. Shut em out as far as I'm concerned. Let them go back to their blackberry clone before Schmidt caught wind of what Apple did.

Simply on principle, Apple should be demanding at least $100/per handset. Hell, $200. Shut em out as far as I'm concerned. Let them go back to their blackberry clone before Schmidt caught wind of what Apple did.

Ironically the competition their copying came with is a good thing for all iOS users.

What Motorola has sought in its proposed settlement is nothing like what Apple wants. Apple is in no way obligated to license it's patents whereas Motorola's patents are on FRAND terms and has no choice but to license them.

Not all Motorola patents are pledged to standards. Even patents that are part of standards didn't stop Microsoft and Nokia from suing Apple last week using another package of Nokia's FRAND-pledged patents. It happens.

Anyway, similar to Apple's cross-licensing with Nokia, the company with the stronger patents will end up getting a small royalty. My guess would be Motorola paying a smaller fee than Samsung if there's any truth to the report to begin with.

What Motorola has sought in its proposed settlement is nothing like what Apple wants. Apple is in no way obligated to license it's patents whereas Motorola's patents are on FRAND terms and has no choice but to license them.

Perfectly and accurately stated!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyberzombie

I can't believe they had negotiations prior to Job's passing. But it looks like a good solution to Samsung et.al. - though $15 will be hard to swallow.

Then again, Microsoft gets $5 from HTC per Android sold.

Apple may have had to set a price to establish the value lost due to infringement. At $15 they were making it too painful to agree to, but it did show the courts that Apple was trying to be fair.
<snigger, snigger>

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge

I'd be happy if Apple gets even the minimum in royalty fees. At least Google and Android won't get away completely. Every little bit of interference will help to slow Android's momentum down. Eventually Android OS will be modified enough where they won't have to pay Apple anything and Apple will get what it was originally after.

Better than going thermonuclear but $15 doesn't seem like a lot of money to me. Apple should have demanded more. Still, if Motorola and Samsung combined sell about 50 million Android devices per quarter that will add up to about 750 million dollars per quarter.

"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong" - Steve Jobs

Settling doesn't sound like something Apple's co-founder would have done.

That was something the author of the book he said heard Jobs say. Did any one else hear it?

Secondly, Job said to numerous other people at Apple that he didn't want everyone standing around asking "what would have Steve done?" because he thought this line of thinking would eventually lead to Apple's downfall as he illustrated with various other companies.

Android is probably impossible to kill right now by litigation. As others on here have pointed out, it will help strangle them while Apple competes on substance.

I'd be happy if Apple gets even the minimum in royalty fees. At least Google and Android won't get away completely. Every little bit of interference will help to slow Android's momentum down. Eventually Android OS will be modified enough where they won't have to pay Apple anything and Apple will get what it was originally after.

Add Microsoft's royalties and sometime in the near future Oracle's for Google stealing Java. It'll be too costly to go with Android eventually. Around 7% royalty payments or more for each handset. It MS plays nice it could undercut that with Windows Phone OS licensing.

What Motorola has sought in its proposed settlement is nothing like what Apple wants. Apple is in no way obligated to license it's patents whereas Motorola's patents are on FRAND terms and has no choice but to license them.

Keep in mind that Motorola wanted 2.25% for a single patent - which would be about $15 per handset. And that's a FRAND-encumbered patent.

Apple is being more than fair.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Better than going thermonuclear but $15 doesn't seem like a lot of money to me. Apple should have demanded more. Still, if Motorola and Samsung combined sell about 50 million Android devices per quarter that will add up to about 750 million dollars per quarter.

Fifteen dollars on the COST of the product will translate to two or three times that amount to the customer. AND 'no' that difference is not profit.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge

Keep in mind that Motorola wanted 2.25% for a single patent - which would be about $15 per handset. And that's a FRAND-encumbered patent.

Apple is being more than fair.

The 2.25% was for Motorola's group of patents pledged to the 3G standard. Otherwise it would make no sense since they could come after Apple for another 2.25% for another patent in the standards-pledged group later, then another, then another. . .

A few days ago I challenged your claim that Motorola and Google announced they wanted 2.25% for each individual patent in the standards pool. If there were 100 that would mean they wanted 225%, plainly ridiculous. I said at that time they had not made any such statement, so you still have the opportunity to prove me wrong.

With all the lawsuits Apple has filed, tell me what patents they have validated thus far that should substantiated their competitors paying them a license fee for?

The patent to automatically recognize a phone number in an email or text so it can be saved to contacts which they supposedly won against HTC and of which HTC has already worked around? The ipad design patent Apple supposed got an injunction against Samsung which was then quickly worked around in the 10.1N model?

What these lawsuits prove is that there are so many layers into what a patent entails. You have to be very specific in what you're trying to patent and it's in the details that competitors can work around your patent or a judge can say "no, it doesn't meet all the requirements of your patent."

These lawsuits are nothing more than nuisance to these mutibillion dollar companies. If on the other hand you're a small company these lawsuits can break your company.

The 2.25% was for Motorola's group of patents pledged to the 3G standard. Otherwise it would make no sense since they could come after Apple for another 2.25% for another patent in the standards-pledged group later, then another, then another. . .

A few days ago I challenged your claim that Motorola and Google announced they wanted 2.25% for each individual patent in the standards pool. If there were 100 that would mean they wanted 225%, plainly ridiculous. I said at that time they had not made any such statement, so you still have the opportunity to prove me wrong.

In this article, Motorola is described as using a "it only takes one bullet to kill" and demanded the same 2.25% royalty for only 2 patents being asserted, instead of the whole patent pool. This isn't directly related to Apple, but it's where the sentiment comes from.

I don't believe they want 2.25% for *each* patent, but that they value anything from a single patent to an entire pool of patents at the same rate.

Fandroids should realize that they're using devices which infringe upon other people's intellectual property, and they should pay accordingly.

The future looks great. Imagine some cheap ass Android phone being sold and $5 goes to Microsoft, $15 goes to Apple, and $20 goes to Oracle!

Royalties are just part of the game, tho $20 to Oracle is now pretty unlikely. They may not get any royalties at all from their current litigation.

Anyway, I've seen claims that even Apple may be paying Nokia more than $10 per iPhone sold just for the license to the standards patents they they settled with Nokia last year. Apparently 5% of the handset sales price, give-or-take, is common in the industry. I found evidence the other day that handset manufacturers that aren't willing to cross-license may be paying upwards of 13% for a license to 4G/LTE standards.

With all the lawsuits Apple has filed, tell me what patents they have validated thus far that should substantiated their competitors paying them a license fee for?

The patent to automatically recognize a phone number in an email or text so it can be saved to contacts which they supposedly won against HTC and of which HTC has already worked around? The ipad design patent Apple supposed got an injunction against Samsung which was then quickly worked around in the 10.1N model?

What these lawsuits prove is that there are so many layers into what a patent entails. You have to be very specific in what you're trying to patent and it's in the details that competitors can work around your patent or a judge can say "no, it doesn't meet all the requirements of your patent."

These lawsuits are nothing more than nuisance to these mutibillion dollar companies. If on the other hand you're a small company these lawsuits can break your company.

I don't think we've seen all the "big guns" yet, and Apple continues to be granted patents that were filed when the iPhone came out.

Sure, you can design around the patents, but often that harms user experience. Which is the point: either don't infringe, or pay.

In this article, Motorola is described as using a "it only takes one bullet to kill" and demanded the same 2.25% royalty for only 2 patents being asserted, instead of the whole patent pool. This isn't directly related to Apple, but it's where the sentiment comes from.

I don't believe they want 2.25% for *each* patent, but that they value anything from a single patent to an entire pool of patents at the same rate.

And that makes sense. I've seen the exact same 2.25% royalty rate applied to their radio standards package licensing from a few years back. They're pretty consistent with the 2.25% for a standards package across the board no matter the number of them contributed to any particular standard.

Royalties are just part of the game, tho $20 to Oracle is now pretty unlikely. They may not get any royalties at all from their current litigation.

Anyway, I've seen claims that even Apple may be paying Nokia more than $10 per iPhone sold just for the license to the standards patents they they settled with Nokia last year. Apparently 5% of the handset sales price, give-or-take, is common in the industry. I found evidence the other day that handset manufacturers that aren't willing to cross-license may be paying upwards of 13% for a license to 4G/LTE standards.

Your "evidence" didn't have any sources, and it was just your interpretation that all the values should be aggregated together. As that would amount to over $100 on an iPhone, and since there is no disclosure that Apple is paying anywhere close to that amount (their profit would be a lot less), it seems likely that there is another explanation, namely that much of the royalties are paid by the chipset manufacturer (Qualcomm) which in turn charges Apple a royalty in the form of the cost of the chip.

Your "evidence" didn't have any sources, and it was just your interpretation that all the values should be aggregated together. As that would amount to over $100 on an iPhone, and since there is no disclosure that Apple is paying anywhere close to that amount (their profit would be a lot less), it seems likely that there is another explanation, namely that much of the royalties are paid by the chipset manufacturer (Qualcomm) which in turn charges Apple a royalty in the form of the cost of the chip.

You said the exact same thing before. I gave you evidence it was true, while you only had a vague belief that it couldn't be with no citations to back up your "feelings". I really don't feel like rehashing it, but I gave more than one solid source for my claims. Qualcomm themselves very plainly say the 3.5 they want by themselves is based on the finished end-user subscriber device:
"Qualcomm expects that it will charge royalties for a license under its standards essential LTE patents and/or standards essential WiMax patents for complete, end user subscriber devices that implement LTE and/or WiMax standards, but do not implement any 3G CDMA standards, of approximately 3.25% of the wholesale selling price of each such device, subject to reciprocity and other standard terms and conditions.

They were issued the Slide To Lock and promptly used that to sue Motorola and block two of the older versions of their phones? In the newer android system you can unlock by sliding right to left, left to right, make a circle or J shape.

When the courts look more into this they will not only throw out this patent claim but also negate it because this patent it was previously awarded to Neonode. And if you argue that Apple's patent isn't exactly like Neo's then that's the same argument Motorola can use against Apple.

And designs don't stay the same for eternity. Even Apple makes changes to their products. Look at how the iPhone has progressed.

Plus you use your most powerful patents in a lawsuit to get your adversaries to settle with you for your full portfolio. Every good lawyer knows you shouldn't go into trial unless you know you're going to win (except those greedy ones that just like to keep on billing you). That is what Nokia did with Apple so what makes you think Motorola will ask for 2.25% for only 2 patents?

You said the exact same thing before. I gave you evidence it was true, while you only had a vague belief that it couldn't be with no citations to back up your "feelings". I really don't feel like rehashing it, but I gave more than one solid source for my claims. Qualcomm themselves very plainly say the 3.5 they want by themselves is based on the finished end-user subscriber device:
"Qualcomm expects that it will charge royalties for a license under its standards essential LTE patents and/or standards essential WiMax patents for complete, end user subscriber devices that implement LTE and/or WiMax standards, but do not implement any 3G CDMA standards, of approximately 3.25% of the wholesale selling price of each such device, subject to reciprocity and other standard terms and conditions.

First off, I did not argue about Qualcomm; I even cited them in my post.

I may well be wrong, but keep in mind that "published rates" are merely what the owner publishes, and is akin to an initial offer. It has not been established as "reasonable" by the courts, and the licensee can make a lower offer. These patents can also be invalidated.

Apple has standards-essential 4G patents as well, so the point is pretty much moot.

They were issued the Slide To Lock and promptly used that to sue Motorola and block two of the older versions of their phones? In the newer android system you can unlock by sliding right to left, left to right, make a circle or J shape.

When the courts look more into this they will not only throw out this patent claim but also negate it because this patent it was previously awarded to Neonode. And if you argue that Apple's patent isn't exactly like Neo's then that's the same argument Motorola can use against Apple.

And designs don't stay the same for eternity. Even Apple makes changes to their products. Look at how the iPhone has progressed.

Plus you use your most powerful patents in a lawsuit to get your adversaries to settle with you for your full portfolio. Every good lawyer knows you shouldn't go into trial unless you know you're going to win (except those greedy ones that just like to keep on billing you). That is what Nokia did with Apple so what makes you think Motorola will ask for 2.25% for only 2 patents?

Neonode, Neonode. Slide-to-unlock is not a gesture, a la the Neonode patent. Slide-to-unlock is manipulating a virtual object to unlock the device along a predetermined path. If Android wants to change it (as they have in newer versions), that's fine. The point it to prevent slavish copying.

And Motorola did ask for 2.25% for only 2 patents, although it was to Microsoft, not Apple.

And Motorola did ask for 2.25% for only 2 patents, although it was to Microsoft, not Apple.

Again the 2.25% applies to a license to the entire package of patents that Motorola pledged to that standard afaik. Motorola was showing two specific ones as being infringed by Microsoft, but the 2.25% would buy them the licensing to any Moto patents pledged for that particular standard. Are there only two that Motorola contributed? I don't know. If you have some source showing there were only those two contributed, then a simple link to the evidence is plenty to convince me.

Again the 2.25% applies to a license to the entire package of patents that Motorola pledged to that standard afaik. Motorola was showing two specific ones as being infringed by Microsoft, but the 2.25% would buy them the licensing to any Moto patents pledged for that particular standard. Are there only two that Motorola contributed? I don't know. If you have some source showing there were only those two contributed, then a simple link to the evidence is plenty to convince me.

You keep saying that, but at the time, it was clear that they were asking for 2.25% per patent - and Google affirmed that number.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Simply on principle, Apple should be demanding at least $100/per handset. Hell, $200. Shut em out as far as I'm concerned. Let them go back to their blackberry clone before Schmidt caught wind of what Apple did.

Luv your comment!

Im glad im not the only one who see the real truth about what happened!

What Motorola has sought in its proposed settlement is nothing like what Apple wants. Apple is in no way obligated to license it's patents whereas Motorola's patents are on FRAND terms and has no choice but to license them.

Actually they are only required to license the FRAND patents on fair and reasonable terms. No one here knows what Motorola or Apple has offered. There is speculation, but no terms published to my knowledge...

I can't see Motorola or Samsung licensing Apples patents as they claim to have already altered the products so that they do not infringe on the patents. The only one that is still in limbo seem to be the auto hyper link detection......

I don't think we've seen all the "big guns" yet, and Apple continues to be granted patents that were filed when the iPhone came out.

Sure, you can design around the patents, but often that harms user experience. Which is the point: either don't infringe, or pay.

Actually some work around turn out to be a better idea. Take the drag to unlock that Androind ICS uses vs the slide to unlock that apple uses. You drag the icon to the app that you want to bring to the front and it opens the app and unlocks the phone. It is very handy and does not seem to violate the guided path slide to unlock patent that apple has....